Talk:Kavango people

disambiguation/incoming links notice

the large number of incoming links here are significant as to what is the primary topic of "Kavango". View stats, incoming links and google states were not done before this disambiguation page was made; that Kavango Region probably outranks Kavango language is a given, as in other similar cases; though the Kavango people are the primary usage of Kavango as the context of the mass of incoming links no doubt demonstrate, as is so often the case; imposing an intermediary disambiguation page upon the reader when a simple hatnote would do is a pattern repeated across hundreds or similar titles..... this page may suit a certain particular editor's preference/agenda about "forced [mandatory) disambiguation" but it is an extra, completely unneeded, step for readers, and not called for by TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC and more. How many people upon hearing "Kavango" are going to want to look up the language, rather than the people or the region? Not that the reader or policy is the concern of the person who has made all these dab pages, and vociferously defends them against change, whether by speedy-in-application-of-standing-policy or by RM. I tire of the game, it will go on long after I die i.e. that Wikipedians with their own agendas will ignore both policy and the real world. The use of a redirect on this page to create it in the first place was typically misleading and seen before; non-legitimate dabs on other pages include words in foreign languages and things that actually have different spellings and pronunciations......and to my knowledge, in this case or the Bantu issue, not once as WP:Africa been notified, and the expertise available there as to what is used in African English, as opposed to a North American amateur linguist's insistent preferences, not consulted - in the same way that view stats and googles and incoming links were not analyzed to determine primary topic before the creation of these dab pages; but when TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC are consistently ignored, why expect anything else to be paid attention to?Skookum1 (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

PRIMARYTOPIC per view stats

• "Kavango people" has been viewed 275 times this month;
  • "Kavango people" has been viewed 1103 times in the last 90 days.
• Kavango_–_Southwest_Bantu_languages has been viewed 85 times this month], and
  • 307 times in the last 90 days, while
• The Kavango River article has been viewed 133 times this month, and
  • 359 times in the last 90 days.
• the Kavango Region article has been viewed 456 times this month, and
  • 1843 times in the last 90 days. NB the Kavango Region no longer exists, it was broken into two:
• Kavango West has been viewed [http://stats.grok.se/en/201405/Kavango%20West 144 times this month, while
• 622 times in the last 90 days
• Kavango East has been viewed 132 times this month and
  • [http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Kavango%20East 621 times in the last 90 days.

An analysis of the incoming links may show contexts re the regions of the rivers, but the standalone link in most cases is, as elsewhere, most likely to do with the people whom the regions and the language group are named for. On that note, people looking up the standalone name Kavango did so 464 times this month so far, and 1477 times in the last 90 days. The former name of the Kavango Region, Okavango, likewise got more views than the language article did, at 200 times this month and 984 times in the last 90 days.Skookum1 (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Skookum1, thanks for your disambiguation edits. You sound like you expect resistance---I'm not sure from whom. Am I getting you right that you want to move Kavango and/or Okavango to their respective (disambiguation) titles, and then redirect the two articles to the article that had most views?

I have no horse in this race. I have no idea whether readers would rather look for the river or for the people or for the language or for the administrative unit. I just would like to ask that the main article neither be Kavango Region nor Okavango Region, as both administrative units no longer exist, and as the chance that a reader might look for a historic administrative unit is IMHO rather slim. --Pgallert (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what the issue is. Kwamikagami has reverted one of your edits; I'm afraid that they were right with this one: There is no language called "Kavango". The Kavango – Southwest Bantu languages are a term invented in the 2000s, nobody local calls any language there "Kavango". This does not look like resistance towards appropriate page titles to me---however, I don't how anybody will determine what the main target of people is that enter 'Kavango'. I would say it is after all, all named after the river, but that's just me. --Pgallert (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The proper way to determine Primary Topic is to ask Skookum what the primary topic is. But in this case I think you're right: They're all named after the Kavango River.

Also, a link to the rd Kavango languages is appropriate in this case, per WP:DABREDIR. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

You both seem to know a lot about DAB policies; I cannot argue with you on that level. But I think the statement Kavango languages are spoken by Kavango people, as present now on the page Kavango, is incorrect:

• It is incorrect to say that Every person belonging to the Kavango people speaks a language classified as Kavango language: The Mbukushu, a kingdom of the Kavango people, speak Mbukushu language which is classified as Bantu (Zone K) but not as Kavango language.
• It is also incorrect to say that Every speaker of a language classified as Kavango language is a member of a tribe that belongs to the Kavango people, as the latter is restricted to the Namibian side of the Kavango.

So all we have is that some Kavango speakers are Kavango people, and some Kavango people are Kavango speakers, with the additional caveat that "Kavango speakers" is a term that's not in common use but highly specific to language classifications by scientists. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 07:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pgallert: Good point. I'd forgotten about the Mbukushu. I'll adjust the wording. A question about your other point, though: At least the Mbukushu, Dciriku, and Kwangali live on both sides of the river. How can they be ethnically Kavango on one side, and not on the other? What about the Dciriku living in Botswana? — kwami (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's simply a question of naming. The Angolan name of the river is Cubango, and their colonial language is Portuguese, so I could imagine they give a different name to Kavango people. From the obvious similarities in the words Gciriku/Dciriku it might be the same tribe, too. But that's speculation, really. --Pgallert (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Gciriku/Dciriku is the same thing. It's unlikely that ethnic consciousness would stop at the border, and e.g. the Kwangali name of the river likely to be the same on either bank. — kwami (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that wording was redundant and misleading, but far more misleading was the dab-maker's claim that a "Kavango language" exists, or the premise that a redirect from that to the Kavango-Southwest Bantu languages was valid, given what you have explained; where the space-endash-space comes from in that title I don't know, but I haven't seen endash or space-endash-space in other hyphenated language titles before. Given the non-existence of that language named as such this reversion with the taunt "editor is not reading the guidelines" is comical; given that the editor who made that comment hasn't shown that he has read or accepts TITLE/PRECISION/CONCISENESS or PRIMARYTOPIC or he wouldn't be conducting the edit wars he has been, nor would he have moved thousands of titles in spite of them, not rewritten NCL to suit himself. Misleading/accusatory edit comments like that are staple fare with him; see here for several examples; among too many to list/diff. I'm not going to bother to undo his latest reversion to Kavango, even though it reinstates the existence of a language that does not, in fact, exist; he has also contended that a Halkomelem people exist, based similarly on "linguistics shorthand" references in certain sources...which serves to underline that it is generous to call linguists "scientists", which they are not, as evidence and fact mean little in their terminology and habits, just as we are seeing here.Skookum1 (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already devoted one 1000+ characters post above to argue that one particular line in one particular dab page is incorrect. I'll certainly not start an edit war over this, and there might be corners of this encyclopedia that more desperately need my help. I further think that en-dashes and title spaces could be discussed elsewhere, as could patronising edit summaries, linguistics as a discipline, or the existence of Halkomelem. In short, what is your suggestion? --Pgallert (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The typically snide commentary from Kwami notwithstanding, determination of the PRIMARYTOPIC not being something he likes to address per his claim that languages are equally primary topics to people, I agree with the point that the Kavango Region/Okavango Region, being defunct, is not a valid PRIMARYTOPIC; and if you read that guideline carefully, and WP:NCDAB also, two-word already-disambiguated titles are not main dabs for the standalone term, and "Kavango" as a root has one meaning...whether the people's name derives from that of the river (the Okavango, not the Kavango as was first put here, among other redirects) or vice versa is pertinent to deciding that. And as noted by Pgallert, there is no language called "Kavango" despite ongoing re-instatements of "Kavango languages" in place of its target; so really it shouldn't be here at all except as a "See also". Muddling of terms by the method being applied here this way is typical of the games being played to prevent standalone titles being for what they mean; the name of a people. Determining PRIMARYTOPIC is about more than view stats, of course, I haven't had time to run google searches and study incoming links as to the context of those links. "Ask 'Skookum' what the primary topic is" entails having me do all the work that he doesn't want to do, for fear of having to admit he's wrong about languages being "equally primary topics" to the peoples they are named for. (he always gets my name wrong, to the point where he hostile-edited the Skookum article thinking it was my userpage).

NB A large series of TWODABS pages created from redirects-to-primary topic have been placed with {{only-two-dabs}} templates, per TWODABS, were removed by Kwami since I placed them, claiming in his edit comment "per TWODABS", even though it was TWODABS which mandated placing them. In this case, Kavango, he came up with the river and more to "force" the disambiguation page; even though the river is the Okavango. Not the first time valid templates have been removed by Kwami, and not the first time he's claimed a guideline mandates the opposite of what it does.Skookum1 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kavango people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030211002414/http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Namibia to http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Namibia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)